5 ms·

Due diligence would have to still require a team showing up, but how aggressively the team behaves needs to be based on any actual data/evidence they can gather

by fouc 5y ago

Due diligence would have to still require a team showing up, but how aggressively the team behaves needs to be based on any actual data/evidence they can gather on-site, rather than operating on assumptions.

ALittleLight 5y ago
There is no way you can ask or expect police to show up to what may be an active shooter situation and be more passive. They may be entering a situation where split second reactions mean the difference between life and death.
- genocidicbunny 5y ago
  If the difference is between life and death for the police, then absolutely they should be required to evaluate the situation. If that results in the police being killed, that is fine. They signed contracts saying they accept this potential consequence. On the other hand, the purported criminals have not been tried and found guilty. Until that has occurred they are innocent. So if that means that when SWAT shows up, they walk in unarmed and get shot..so be it. That is acceptable. Having a potentially innocent person be killed is not.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    That may be your opinion. I doubt the police officers who respond to active shooters would share your disregard for their lives though. Even if you think their deaths are acceptable, they likely won't, and will still go in ready to kill - or won't go in at all if they aren't permitted to defend themselves. Again, the question is really which option is worse. On the one hand we have a zealous police response that will sometimes kill innocent people as a result of things like swatting, being unintentionally misinformed, or even just tragic accidents. On the other hand we have a cautious police response which might minimize the people injured or killed by the causes just discussed but increase the injuries or deaths that result from delays in police response. Which of the two causes the most harm? As I've said before, my intuition is that a rapid response is the least harmful. I think the policing experts in charge of current policing strategy share that opinion based on current protocols. I understand that you prefer the cautious strategy, but I haven't seen you explain why you think there will be less harm from that strategy.
    - genocidicbunny 5y ago
      The police killing an innocent person causes significantly more harm. It is a perversion of justice and societal order. In the long run, it causes far more damage than some people doing during the commission of a crime.
  - dk775 5y ago
    This has been upsetting me about some of what I believe are people raised on the current regime of FAANGesque flattening of society, lot of things have this built in assumption that public services are so unlimited that their cost is not appreciated. Like the gov can be as omnipresent and self sacrificing as a diety.
- zimpenfish 5y ago
  > There is no way you can ask or expect police to show up to what may be an active shooter situation and be more passive. Many non-US countries manage this just fine. It seems to be mainly the US where "warrior cop" is a thing.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    I don't think that's true. Which countries reply to active shooter calls passively?
    - zimpenfish 5y ago
      > Which countries reply to active shooter calls passively? The question was "more passive [than the US]" and not "passively" - that would cover, e.g., the UK, who generally don't roll up to active shooter situations with a squadron of heavily armed trigger happy warrior cops like the US does.

by fouc 5y ago

ALittleLight 5y ago

There is no way you can ask or expect police to show up to what may be an active shooter situation and be more passive. They may be entering a situation where split second reactions mean the difference between life and death.

genocidicbunny 5y ago
If the difference is between life and death for the police, then absolutely they should be required to evaluate the situation. If that results in the police being killed, that is fine. They signed contracts saying they accept this potential consequence. On the other hand, the purported criminals have not been tried and found guilty. Until that has occurred they are innocent. So if that means that when SWAT shows up, they walk in unarmed and get shot..so be it. That is acceptable. Having a potentially innocent person be killed is not.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  That may be your opinion. I doubt the police officers who respond to active shooters would share your disregard for their lives though. Even if you think their deaths are acceptable, they likely won't, and will still go in ready to kill - or won't go in at all if they aren't permitted to defend themselves. Again, the question is really which option is worse. On the one hand we have a zealous police response that will sometimes kill innocent people as a result of things like swatting, being unintentionally misinformed, or even just tragic accidents. On the other hand we have a cautious police response which might minimize the people injured or killed by the causes just discussed but increase the injuries or deaths that result from delays in police response. Which of the two causes the most harm? As I've said before, my intuition is that a rapid response is the least harmful. I think the policing experts in charge of current policing strategy share that opinion based on current protocols. I understand that you prefer the cautious strategy, but I haven't seen you explain why you think there will be less harm from that strategy.
  - genocidicbunny 5y ago
    The police killing an innocent person causes significantly more harm. It is a perversion of justice and societal order. In the long run, it causes far more damage than some people doing during the commission of a crime.
- dk775 5y ago
  This has been upsetting me about some of what I believe are people raised on the current regime of FAANGesque flattening of society, lot of things have this built in assumption that public services are so unlimited that their cost is not appreciated. Like the gov can be as omnipresent and self sacrificing as a diety.
zimpenfish 5y ago
> There is no way you can ask or expect police to show up to what may be an active shooter situation and be more passive. Many non-US countries manage this just fine. It seems to be mainly the US where "warrior cop" is a thing.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  I don't think that's true. Which countries reply to active shooter calls passively?
  - zimpenfish 5y ago
    > Which countries reply to active shooter calls passively? The question was "more passive [than the US]" and not "passively" - that would cover, e.g., the UK, who generally don't roll up to active shooter situations with a squadron of heavily armed trigger happy warrior cops like the US does.